On 14/10/2016 10:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:28:42AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h index 3c22d49005fe..271e63c8f037 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h @@ -2175,8 +2175,8 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object_ops { * being released or under memory pressure (where we attempt to * reap pages for the shrinker). */ - int (*get_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *); - void (*put_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *); + struct sg_table *(*get_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *); + void (*put_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *, struct sg_table *); Idea is that put_pages vfunc does not need struct mutex? Or it acquires it on demand inside it, which means struct mutex will nest inside the mm.lock?Right, it loses the mutex within get/put pages and I am no longer concerned about the number of workers. Though that is mainly because of another patch to improve execbuf + userptr workloads.
Is that other patch before or after this one? Or in a different series altogether? In any case, why should this change be in this patch, especially when it is not commented anywhere?
Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
